SONY a6500, should I buy it?
May 25, 2019 08:57:28 #
Claree wrote:
I've been very satisfied with the performance of m... (show quote)
As others have mentioned focus speed, accuracy and tracking are far more important than IBIS. What good is IBIS if the focus is not tack sharp. Besides you can upgrade to a better lens that has OSS helped by the money you save.
I love to shoot birds. Here is an example of a difficult subject with an A6400. Try that with a A6500.
May 25, 2019 09:19:42 #
May 25, 2019 09:21:53 #
Oddly no one was complaining about focus speed and accuracy prior to the introduction of the 6400. I do believe tracking is better. But I have no issues with the 6500 focus accuracy. I looked up some reviews of the 6500, this Cameralabs one was typical: “Ultimately the AF system of the A6500 is a triumph, out-performing most rivals in coverage, density, tracking or speed and taking on more expensive DSLRs at their own game.” Maybe some marketing hype here? I think the tradeoff is really application. If you shoot a lot of sports the the 6400 may be for you. The 6500 is my travel camera and I rarely lose shots on focus, I used to lose shots on stability, especially indoors in low light. And while I have a couple of stabilized zooms- the 24-105 and 24-240 they are big, and I enjoy the very compact, and relatively inexpensive primes from Sony, Sigma and Rokinon that work with IBIS. There was a review today in UHH of a Sigma 30/2.8, thats a perfect example. For me if I was buying today I would still take the 6500 over the 6400.
May 25, 2019 09:42:30 #
May 25, 2019 10:15:10 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
I read about the 6400 & 6500. I was confused. No stabilization on 6400? Where is Sony going with this.
Writer favored 6400. I have to say I have the a6300 for a while and think the camera is superb.
No stabilizing but I have lens with it. 4k which I wanted. Jerry mentioned lens stabilizing
not as good as in the body.
Sony has been driving me crazy with their RX100 series i stayed with 4. And this series the 6000.
They don't do this with models like the a7s which a landmark camera with low light amazing.
I graduated to the a7sII and it is superb. Also a great video camera as well as stills.
This camera is still rated high by articles and ratings.
Then Sony brings out the a7 III way underpriced but rated high.Competing with themselves
but right at Nikon and Canon and others etc.
The big dealer me in 10 Bit.
Writer favored 6400. I have to say I have the a6300 for a while and think the camera is superb.
No stabilizing but I have lens with it. 4k which I wanted. Jerry mentioned lens stabilizing
not as good as in the body.
Sony has been driving me crazy with their RX100 series i stayed with 4. And this series the 6000.
They don't do this with models like the a7s which a landmark camera with low light amazing.
I graduated to the a7sII and it is superb. Also a great video camera as well as stills.
This camera is still rated high by articles and ratings.
Then Sony brings out the a7 III way underpriced but rated high.Competing with themselves
but right at Nikon and Canon and others etc.
The big dealer me in 10 Bit.
May 25, 2019 10:32:13 #
Image stabilization -- whether in-body or in-lens -- is only a real advantage with slow shutter speeds.
Superior auto-focus matters with every shot, though admittedly focus speed is not a requirement for every subject.
With the advance in higher ISO image quality of today's state-of-the-art camera sensors, the utility of a slow shutter speed is less important than it was. Few if any images will be degraded by upping the ISO a bit to increase the shutter speed enough to compensate for the lack of image stabilization. (In fact I'm wondering if IS will eventually become a superfluous complexity.)
So I have to conclude that, today, superior auto-focus has become a a significantly more important advantage than image stabilization. And so I picked the a6400 over the a6500 as a better camera and better value. (Pet observation -- Sony is the auto-focus leader at least for now.)
Superior auto-focus matters with every shot, though admittedly focus speed is not a requirement for every subject.
With the advance in higher ISO image quality of today's state-of-the-art camera sensors, the utility of a slow shutter speed is less important than it was. Few if any images will be degraded by upping the ISO a bit to increase the shutter speed enough to compensate for the lack of image stabilization. (In fact I'm wondering if IS will eventually become a superfluous complexity.)
So I have to conclude that, today, superior auto-focus has become a a significantly more important advantage than image stabilization. And so I picked the a6400 over the a6500 as a better camera and better value. (Pet observation -- Sony is the auto-focus leader at least for now.)
May 25, 2019 10:32:52 #
May 25, 2019 11:23:06 #
Claree wrote:
I've been very satisfied with the performance of my SONY a6000 but wish to upgrade. After researching many models and even some full frames, I've decide to step up to the SONY a6500........
Have had the 6500 for several years and am extremely pleased with it in all regards. Focus is fast enough for what I do and images are great. IBS is important to me as I grows older and also use many legacy lenses. Also bought some non-E mount lenses from Sigma as they were not available from Sony and the Sigmas work fine with auto focus on the 6500.
From the comments here and elsewhere on the net you can't go wrong with either camera. Enjoy.
May 25, 2019 11:34:35 #
I've been using the Sony a6000 for about a half year and am happy with the quality of my images. I bought it with the two kit lenses and have been toying with the idea of either getting a second body a6400 or the SEL18200LE lens. The reviews of the 18-200 lens indicates that at 200mm the images aren't that great vs. carrying two cameras and two lenses. Both are selling new for about the same price. My problem with the a6000 is that the sound of the shutter cannot be turned off when I'm photographing various events. I'm waiting to see if Sony will release a new version a6700 or a7000 in the near future. Perhaps the new features will outweigh the expected steep price increase.
May 25, 2019 12:10:51 #
I have had the a6000 for a year. I plan to purchase an a7r III as my next camera . The lenses I bought after using the ones from the a6000 kit are both FE full frame. I plan to keep the a6000 since resale looks to be rather low, and trade in is peanuts. I do like the size of the a6000. Funny with a 70-300 tile lens on it though.
May 25, 2019 13:01:04 #
the 6400 does not have IS, but it has the next generation bionx processor to allow firmware updates that will offer more features (i.e. animal eye detect). The 6500 has IS, but the first generation bionx processor. Sony will give you firmware updates but some things would not be available (i.e. animal eye dectect). Both processors are great and these both great cameras.
May 25, 2019 13:01:26 #
Imageandart wrote:
I've been using the Sony a6000 for about a half ye... (show quote)
I have been waiting for the A6500 replacement for some time. Some predict it will announce this year but I'm skeptical. As long as the A6500 is selling well why replace it. Additionally a replacement would steel sales from their existing line up.
When it is released and if it turns out to be a mini A9 I'll likely buy it. Hope the focus is on global shutter, noise and DR rather than MP.
Meanwhile I'm enjoying the A7R3 and A6400. Although neither one is perfect, so far they are the best I have used. In fact the only brand of ILC that I have not used is Pentax.
May 26, 2019 01:53:12 #
I have owned a A6500 and it is has been the top Sony APS-C camera for a couple of years. It takes excellent photos, focuses quickly,shoots 11fps and has IBIS, and great 4k video, downsampled from 6k.. The newer A6400 has no IBIS but has an enhanced focusing system based on a processor developed from the one in the A9. Yes the A6400 will focus and track even faster than the A6500. And yes there is coming a successor to the A6500, a "high-end" Sony APS-C A7000, maybe by end of summer or early fall.
The A6500 may be a real bargain in price now with a successor coming out. But it still is a great camera. It was my companion and backup camera to my A7RII and later my A7RIII. As a pro of over 40 years who has used great gear from many camera makers, my A6500 a was camera that could handle any subject with aplomb. It was a hard choice but I traded in my A6500 and A7III to get an A9. I really miss the compact and super A6500. IMHO, if you buy it you will NOT be disappointed.
The A6500 may be a real bargain in price now with a successor coming out. But it still is a great camera. It was my companion and backup camera to my A7RII and later my A7RIII. As a pro of over 40 years who has used great gear from many camera makers, my A6500 a was camera that could handle any subject with aplomb. It was a hard choice but I traded in my A6500 and A7III to get an A9. I really miss the compact and super A6500. IMHO, if you buy it you will NOT be disappointed.
May 26, 2019 08:04:13 #
May 26, 2019 14:24:32 #
The a6400 is a more recent Sony release. It is said there are some improvements.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.